Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Maarten Buis <maartenlbuis@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: conception confusion - "fixed effects" and time effect on data with time factor |

Date |
Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:38:58 +0200 |

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, House Wang wrote: > Yes, I think the the variable I am by proxy controlling for is in fact > intervening dependent variables. In that case you should definatively _not_ control for year. > I have a related question. Is it O.K. that I directly add year as a > variable in the model, instead of i.year? It is legal stata syntax, but whether it makes sense depends on the substantive background. Adding year means you estimate a linear trend, while adding i.year means you add a dummy/indicator-variable for every year. Only you can decide which one makes sense. Hope this helps, Maarten -------------------------- Maarten L. Buis Institut fuer Soziologie Universitaet Tuebingen Wilhelmstrasse 36 72074 Tuebingen Germany http://www.maartenbuis.nl -------------------------- * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: conception confusion - "fixed effects" and time effect on data with time factor***From:*House Wang <jwanghouse@gmail.com>

**References**:**st: conception confusion - "fixed effects" and time effect on data with time factor***From:*House Wang <jwanghouse@gmail.com>

**Re: st: conception confusion - "fixed effects" and time effect on data with time factor***From:*Richard Williams <richardwilliams.ndu@gmail.com>

**Re: st: conception confusion - "fixed effects" and time effect on data with time factor***From:*House Wang <jwanghouse@gmail.com>

**Re: st: conception confusion - "fixed effects" and time effect on data with time factor***From:*Maarten Buis <maartenlbuis@gmail.com>

**Re: st: conception confusion - "fixed effects" and time effect on data with time factor***From:*House Wang <jwanghouse@gmail.com>

**Re: st: conception confusion - "fixed effects" and time effect on data with time factor***From:*Maarten Buis <maartenlbuis@gmail.com>

**Re: st: conception confusion - "fixed effects" and time effect on data with time factor***From:*House Wang <jwanghouse@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Fwd: Comparing marginal effects of two subsamples** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: conception confusion - "fixed effects" and time effect on data with time factor** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: conception confusion - "fixed effects" and time effect on data with time factor** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: conception confusion - "fixed effects" and time effect on data with time factor** - Index(es):